Ten years after the start of the Canine
Health Concern campaign to end annual vaccination, the following letter
appeared in Veterinary Times, UK - at the end of January 2004.
In the world of science, ten years is a very
short time in which to expect a see change.
We and others whose dogs have suffered vaccine
reactions; we whose beloved friends have died and suffered unnecessarily,
have been pilloried and castigated for speaking the truth for long enough
now.
Time to take this letter to your vet; time
to post it to other vets in your neighbourhood; time to show this letter
to all the dog lovers you meet in the park or at classes. Time to get the
truth out there once and for all. Time to stop our beloved animals suffering.
Time to say 'YES!' - but not yet time to stop the campaign.
We shall not be finished until annual vaccination
is a thing of the past.
I dedicate this post to my own dear friends
who had to die for this letter to appear in Veterinary Times: Oliver, Prudence
and Samson, and to the thousands, or even millions, of animals and children
whose lives have been terminated because people in scientific and veterinary
communities saw a way to make a quick annual buck.
My respect and gratitude go to the courageous
veterinarians who have
signed the letter below.
Catherine O'Driscoll
Please feel free to cross post far and wide:
Dear Editor
We, the undersigned, would like to bring to
your attention our concerns in
the light of recent new evidence regarding
vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical Association
Committee report this
year states that 'the one year revaccination
recommendation frequently
found on many vaccination labels is based on
historical precedent, not
scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is
evidence that some vaccines
provide immunity beyond one year. In fact,
according to research there is
no proof that many of the yearly vaccinations
are necessary and that
protection in many instances may be life long';
also, 'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and
risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient
immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase
their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may
be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or combination
thereof.
Possible adverse events include failure to
immunise, anaphylaxis,
immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient
infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal Hospital Association
Canine Vaccine
Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003) is
also interesting reading:
'Current knowledgte supports the statement
that no vaccine is always
safe, no vaccine is always protective and no
vaccine is always indicated';
'Misunderstanding, misinformation and the conservative
nature of our
profession have largely slowed adoption of
protocols advocating decreased
frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory
provides durations of
immunity for core infectious diseases that
far exceed the traditional
recommendations for annual vaccination. This
is supported by a growing body of veterinary information as well as well-developed
epidemiological vigilance in human medicine that indicates immunity induced
by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in .most cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that the duration
of immunity for rabies
vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine parvovirus
vaccine, feline
panleukopaenia vaccine, feline rhinotracheitis
and feline calicivurus have
all been demonstrated to be a minimum of seven
years, by serology for rabies and challenge studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that
no single achievement has
had greater impact on the lives and well-being
of our patients, our clients and our ability to prevent infectious diseases
than the developments in annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the
recommendations and guidelines of the American Animal Hospitals Association
Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for dogs and cats such that booster
vaccinations are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines
unless otherwise scientifically justified.
We further suggest that the evidence currently
available will soon lead to
the following facts being accepted:
* The immune systems of dogs and cats mature
fully at six months
and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine given
after that age produces
immunity that is good for the life of that
pet.
* If another MLV vaccine is given a year later,
the antibodies
from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens
from the subsequent so there
is little or no effect; the pet is not 'boosted',
nor are more memory cells
induced.
* Not only are annual boosters for canine parvovirus
and distemper
unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential
risks of allergic reactions
and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
* There is no scientific documentation to back
up label claims
for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
* Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through
their mothers'
milk.
This natural protection can last eight to 14
weeks.
* Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated
at less than eight
weeks.
Maternal immunity will neutralise the vaccine
and little protection
will be produced.
* Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY
the timing of the
first effective vaccine.
* Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather
than stimulate
the immune system.
This would give possible new guidelines as follows:
1. A series of vaccinations is given starting
at eight weeks of
age (or preferably later) and given three to
four weeks apart, up to
16 weeks of age.
2. One further booster is given sometime after
six months of age
and will then provide life-long immunity.
In light of data now available showing the needless
use and
potential harm of annual vaccination, we call
on our profession to
cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder that clients are losing faith
in vaccination and
researching the issue themselves? We think
they are right to do so. Politics,
tradition or the economic well-being of veterinary
surgeons and
pharmaceutical companies should not be a factor
in making medical
decisions.
It is accepted that the annual examination of
a pet is advisable.
We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang
this essential service on
the back of vaccination and will ultimately
suffer the consequences. Do we
need to wait until we see actions against vets,
such as those launched in
the state of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He
asserts that the present practice
of marketing vaccinations for companion animals
constitutes fraud by
misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft
by deception.
The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary
surgeons is 'to help, or at
least do no harm'. We wish to maintain our
position within society,
and be deserving of the trust placed in us
as a profession. It is
therefore our contention that those who continue
to give annual vaccinations in
the light of new evidence may well be acting
contrary to the wefare of the
animals committed to their care.
Yours faithfully
Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS
Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS
Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS
Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS
Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS
Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS
Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS
John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS
Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS
Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS
Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS
Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS
Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS
Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS
Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS
Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS
Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS
Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS
Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS
Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS, and
Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS
